9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction service. The appellant contention is that the scope of work includes supply of material along with provisions of service in construction raising height of the ash pond, the situation being so, the activity would come under work contract service, which is not leviable to service tax prior to 1.6.2007 in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of L&T [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] also period subsequent to 1.6.2007 this issue is part of the work contract service and not CICS. As the demand raised under the CICS, the same is not sustainable and, therefore, the assessee appellant contention that they are not leviable to service tax is required to be upheld in view of various decisions. Appeal allowed - deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 15/2004-ST dated 10.9.204 (up to 28.2.2006) and as per S. No. 7 of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006. The scope of work involved supply of all materials required for the work by the appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that initially they had paid the service tax to the extent of ₹ 2,30,318/- on 5.11.2005, thereafter as per the advise of NALCO they were not to make payment of service tax as the same is in respect to dam and therefore not liable to service tax. After the due process of law, Commissioner has held in view of exchange of correspondence by the appellant that there is no suppression of fact involved in the case and therefore confirmed the demand of service tax for the normal period i.e. October, 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 2017 (6) GSTL 431 (Tri.-Del.); (iv) Engineers India Technical Services Vs. CCE ST, Raipur 2017 (6) GSTL 259 (Chatt.); (v) Madhukar Mittal Vs. CCE 2017 (4) GSTL 412 (Chan.). Hence the demand prior to 31.5.2007 under CICS is not sustainable. It was also further submitted that pure service contract are only covered under CICS and confirming a demand under CICS post 1.6.2017, in respect of composite contract undertaken by the appellant is not at all sustainable for which the reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) URC Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2017 (50) STR 147 (Tri.-Chennai); (ii) Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2014 (36) STR 944 (Tri.-Bang.); (iii) Skyway Infra Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority is not proper and correct to the extent of dropped portion of demand by the adjudicating authority. 6. We have heard the parties and gone through the appeal papers. The issue involved in this case is regarding raising of height and upgradation of the ash pond by the appellant for M/s NALCO. It is on record that the appellant has paid the service tax to the extent of ₹ 2,17,741/- initially but on advise of their client i.e. NALCO they stopped the payment of service tax on being told that the proposed work is within the ambit of definition of dam, which covers pond and services have been relatable to water resources and therefore the service would not come under the category of commercial or industrial construction service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
